[daveharty]

---

Playing in a Swiss Teams event, with IMP scoring, the play of the first few tricks was as follows:

T1: ♦Q, 2, K, 3
T2: ♦7, A, 4, 5
T3: ♣4, 6, K, 9
T4: ♣2, 3, Q, J
T5: ♣5

...at which point West paused for at least 60 seconds (agreed hesitation). He finally discarded a heart, and threw two spades on the next two clubs (East discarding a heart and a spade, South throwing a spade and a heart). South then played a spade to the Ace, and threw West in with a diamond, playing for West to have started with ♠Hxx ♥Kxx ♦QJTxx ♣Jx. When West cashed a spade and three diamonds for down one, and the ♥K proved to be onside, South called foul, saying that on the actual distribution, West had nothing to think about, and could have discarded painlessly. South further argued that without the hesitation indicating that West had a difficult discard problem, the heart finesse would have been indicated.

What do you think?

[blackshoe]

I think South is grasping at straws.

[cherdano]

West obviously had something to think about - how to convince declarer that he has the ♥K and a different shape.
Its completely normal to think before the first discard in any case.

[iviehoff]

 cherdano, on 2013-October-20, 20:42, said:

West obviously had something to think about - how to convince declarer that he has the ♥K and a different shape.
Its completely normal to think before the first discard in any case.

Your second comment is more to the point. A player can plausibly need some time to plan what shape he wants to end up with, even though after that analysis he realises he is not actually under pressure. So South's conclusion that the only plausible think that might cause W to take time is being embarrassed by a lot of high cards is unwarranted.

But I would explicitly disagree with your first comment. In the same way that it is generally ruled that taking time to select which of alternative small cards in a suit to play is not a good reason to take time, I think it would generally be ruled that taking time to think how best to mislead declarer with your discards would not be seen as a good reason to take time. In this case, I doubt that is what W is actually doing.

[cherdano]

 iviehoff, on 2013-October-21, 02:32, said:

But I would explicitly disagree with your first comment. In the same way that it is generally ruled that taking time to select which of alternative small cards in a suit to play is not a good reason to take time, I think it would generally be ruled that taking time to think how best to mislead declarer with your discards would not be seen as a good reason to take time. In this case, I doubt that is what W is actually doing.

I really don't think these situations are comparable. Choosing discards is much more complex than following with three small for many reasons. Basically, a defender has to work out the entire hand to see whether discarding from xx would give away a finesse, whether declarer likely has no chance when both defenders discard correctly, or whether he needs to be talked into a losing option.

Let me give a different example. Say both defenders have worked out that the hand only depends on a queen guess in the key suit, if they discard correctly. I still think both defenders (the one with xx and the one with Qxxx) are entitled to think about making discards such that they won't have to give their shape away later on.

[campboy]

I agree with Iviehoff. West might be thinking about how best to deceive declarer, but if it is his thinking time, rather than the card he actually plays, that accomplishes this, that is not legitimate deception (he is required to be particularly careful in situations where variations in tempo are likely to benefit his side).

Of course he is entitled to plan all three discards at this point. But here I don't see that he has anything worth spending 60 seconds on.

[gnasher]

East's played his clubs in the sequence 9-3-8. What did that mean?

When the director asked West what he was thinking about, what was the reply?

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2013-October-21, 04:33

[daveharty]

 gnasher, on 2013-October-21, 04:31, said:

East's played his clubs in the sequence 9-3-8. What did that mean?

When the director asked West what he was thinking about, what was the reply?

EW were playing upside-down count and attitude, that's all I know about their carding agreements.

The director was never called; South felt his legal case was tenuous, and as the result of the hand did not impact the result of the match, he didn't pursue it.

[barmar]

 cherdano, on 2013-October-20, 20:42, said:

West obviously had something to think about - how to convince declarer that he has the ♥K and a different shape.

Perhaps, but he should do that with his choice of discards, not his tempo.

Quote

Its completely normal to think before the first discard in any case.

Although in a case like this, he should be able to tell at trick 3 (if not earlier) that he'll probably need to find discards on the clubs, and plan ahead to avoid tempo breaks.

[cherdano]

Ok, this is the second time someone implied that I think it is ok that the defender is misleading declarer via his timing.

Maybe I deserve to be treated like an idiot, so let me clarify that this is not what I meant.
Let me conversely return the favour:
"What shape would declarer likely play me for? What shape should I therefore come down to in the endgame so that I give declarer the option to play for a strip squeeze rather than a finesse" is an entirely normal problem to think about. If you don't think so, you haven't played high-level bridge. 73.D.1 ("players should be particularly careful when variations in tempo may work to the benefit of their side") does not apply, as any strong declarer will know that West will may have this problem (talk declarer into the losing option between strip squeeze and finesse) no matter whether he has ♥K or not.

[campboy]

 cherdano, on 2013-October-21, 16:57, said:

"What shape would declarer likely play me for? What shape should I therefore come down to in the endgame so that I give declarer the option to play for a strip squeeze rather than a finesse" is an entirely normal problem to think about. If you don't think so, you haven't played high-level bridge. 73.D.1 ("players should be particularly careful when variations in tempo may work to the benefit of their side") does not apply, as any strong declarer will know that West will may have this problem (talk declarer into the losing option between strip squeeze and finesse) no matter whether he has ♥K or not.

No, I haven't played high-level bridge. But no-one said this was a high-level event; it was a Swiss teams and I've played in plenty of them. I am happy to take your word for it that at international level this isn't a situation where tempo is liable to deceive declarer, but at the reasonable congress level I do play at it definitely is.

[cherdano]

Well, obviously West was good enough to decide that he should assume declarer will play him for 3352 most likely, and discarded accordingly.
Let me ask the question differently: if West is good enough to come to such a conclusion after a minute, is he allowed to think a minute before the first discard?

[cherdano]

 campboy, on 2013-October-21, 03:50, said:

But here I don't see that he has anything worth spending 60 seconds on.

Let's say West's thought process went as follows:

• Ok, I will have to make three discards, so let me stop to think for a second.
  
• Declarer has 3 tricks and I have seen 6 hcp from him.
  
• If partner has ♥A, we are beating this no matter what I do, so let's assume declarer has it.
  
• If partner has ♠A, declarer will have enough tricks in hearts with his remaining 9+hcp, so let's assume declarer has it.
  
• That leaves 1-3 hcp for declarer unaccounted for.
  
• If that's the ♠J, there is nothing he can do, and if he has ♥K or ♥Q, he has 9 tricks.
  
• So my discard doesn't matter?
  
• But wait: if he has ♥Q, he could also plan to strip squeeze me into leading a heart, for which he only needs to guess my shape.
  
• He is most likely to play me for 3352, and I need to discard so that it looks like I have no spades and two hearts left.
  
• So I need to pitch a heart and two spades.

Say West needs 60 seconds for these thoughts. Which part of this thought process is supposed to be illegal?

[gnasher]

 cherdano, on 2013-October-22, 03:58, said:

• If partner has ♥A, we are beating this no matter what I do, so let's assume declarer has it.

I know it's not relevant to the (excellent) point that you were making, but I think this is incorrect. If partner has ♥A it's unbeatable, because that gives declarer ♥KQ.

[campboy]

 cherdano, on 2013-October-22, 03:58, said:

Say West needs 60 seconds for these thoughts. Which part of this thought process is supposed to be illegal?

The part where he failed to be careful about tempo in a situation where a variation was likely to work to his advantage.

You've convinced me that there is a bridge reason for the pause, so (providing that was what the player was thinking about) I can't adjust under 73F. But I still do not think the player has fulfilled his 73D1 obligations. I wouldn't have felt able to take anything like as long, and as a result even if I had stumbled into the same defence it would have been less likely to work.

[cherdano]

 campboy, on 2013-October-22, 08:57, said:

The part where he failed to be careful about tempo in a situation where a variation was likely to work to his advantage.

You've convinced me that there is a bridge reason for the pause, so (providing that was what the player was thinking about) I can't adjust under 73F. But I still do not think the player has fulfilled his 73D1 obligations. I wouldn't have felt able to take anything like as long, and as a result even if I had stumbled into the same defence it would have been less likely to work.

So you would allow the 60 seconds pause only if the player is known to be good enough to think about possible strip squeezes when he has all the high-cards, and declarer is good enough to know that a good player will think about such things even when he doesn't have all the high cards?

You really can't cut it this finely. You are assuming that declarer is on a level where he doesn't realize that there is something to think about without all the high cards. Arguably, thinking about the strip squeeze is actually easier when you have all the high cards. So that means that when the defender is on a level where he can think about the strip squeeze in 20 seconds when he has all the high cards, we will call the director when he takes 60 seconds and has the ♥K?

Come on, let defenders think when they have a reason to think, and let declarers guess based on the defenders' thinking.

[campboy]

It's really not about whether the defender is "known to be good enough". When called to rule in this sort of situation, of course I ask the defender what he was thinking about. If his answer makes it clear that he has a bridge reason for the pause, whether or not it's one I would have thought of myself, then I don't adjust. But that doesn't mean I automatically think spending that time is beyond reproach, and in some situations I would warn the defender of his obligations to be careful where it is the tempo, rather than purely the cards he plays, that deceives declarer.

[mycroft]

Well, I give leeway on first pitches of many. I certainly am not thinking of (just) what my first pitch is going to be at this time. Earlier might be better, but a) I need to know as much as I can from partner; and b) if I thought on the first club, now declarer is going to claim I'm trying to figure out what the best falsecard for my hand is on that trick.

Yes, best would be to sit on trick 3 or 4 and work all this out. That usually involves everyone playing to trick 5 and sometimes trick 6 as they see my card played "twice".